The UK, France and Russia were the only states to vote against a United Nations (UN) resolution to set up a scientific panel into the effects of nuclear war. There were 144 votes in favour of the resolution, and 30 abstentions. The vote took place at the First Committee of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). A full UNGA vote is expected to take place in December. Given the scale of support in the First Committee the resolution is almost certain to pass.
The resolution mandates a 21-member Scientific Panel to review the social and physical effects of nuclear war in 2025 and 2026, reporting back to the General Assembly in 2027. The UN has published studies into the effects of nuclear war in the past, but their last study on the subject was published in 1988. The push for an updated study originated with the Scientific Advisory Group to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), but builds upon recent work in other scientific bodies.
NIS understands that the UK and France strongly lobbied other countries to oppose the resolution, and were hoping for a joint NATO stance of opposition. In the end eight NATO states voted for the resolution and 22 abstained, including the US. NATO states made up more than 2/3 of the abstaining states. Even amongst states possessing nuclear weapons, the UK, France and Russia were in the minority, with India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea joining the US in abstaining. Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Zambia were the only states to abstain who are neither members of NATO nor nuclear weapon possessors.
In the explanation of its vote, delivered as a speech to the UN, the UK said that there was already “abundant” information on the topic, and that the panel “could not produce ‘new’ evidence…[or] advance us towards our collective long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” It further claimed that the objectives of the panel were “ill-defined and ambiguous”, and cited the cost of the panel as an additional reason.
In reality, the UK’s opposition is more likely to arise from a fear that highlighting the effects of nuclear conflict will further reduce the legitimacy of nuclear weapons and the isolation of nuclear possessor states. Opposition to the TPNW may also play a role, with support for that treaty having arisen from the Humanitarian Initiative conferences, which highlighted the consequences of nuclear weapons use.